Does this engine look worn for 90?

LOL, you're having a laugh yes?

Tim..

Unfortunately you can't really tell if an engine is 'worn' just by looking at it. To me, that looks perfectly fine. There is no excess of oil drippage (no leaking gaskets externally). The engine could, however, be totally shot. Bearings could be on the way out, piston rings could be losing compression and allowing oil to be burnt etc. Saying that, it's a Honda engine so should probably be OK.

F'kin ell. I paid under half that for a lower mileage FSH example 2 years ago.

The alloys weren't bubbling, there were no scuffs or scratches, the drivers side window worked as did the central locking.

It's about worth it's current top bid.

New Alternator, 20 quid from your nearest scrappy's, fitted by yourself.

Brian Pears (BP) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

That's a photo of the outside of an engine. "Worn" implies the inside.

Last March, I think you mean...

For a '97 620?

1150 quid would be taking the piss. Unless you meant March 2004. Or perhaps

Brand new alternator, fitted by a dealer, new belt, it's not unfeasible. Bear in mind that it was a three year old car at the time, so ignore Billy's scrappy suggestion.

Yes, I didn't see the date there, I was way off the mark, on another planet entirely for that one.

What I meant was the engine bay area, does it look like its done more than 94k? Looks a bit tired to me for 94k.

Brian Pears (BP) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It looks like a slightly grubby, but not leaky, 9yo engine. The mileage has no bearing on the appearance of the engine bay.

At least it doesn't look like some f****it's been poking a steam cleaner round the bay, trashing the ECUs and sensors.

Recon, £40 fitted.

I can show you engine bays that have only done 50k but you'd think they'd done several times that. All it is is corrosion on the alloys which is down to age and how it's stored.